On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 11:58 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Antonio Olivares
To cat the free fish living in the sea, Les will need more
than a free boat.
He will also need Nets,
snip
He does need much more? Yes GNU provides these things, but
he does not want to give
I'm changing the Subject: header because some people who are not
reading the thread seem to have inferred, from the unchanging subject,
that the original huge thread was all about a single topic.
Although this particular topic would probably be a better fit for
fedora-legal, I believe most of its
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license
(copyright license), work as a whole does not mean each individual
part.
Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or
linkages
I'm changing the Subject: header because some people who
are not
reading the thread seem to have inferred, from the
unchanging subject,
that the original huge thread was all about a single topic.
Although this particular topic would probably be a better
fit for
fedora-legal, I believe
Antonio Olivares wrote:
I have gotten more of an insight on this issue and I have to say that
although you have many good points, Les has very good points as well.
I have gotten some input regarding issues with GPL.
...
/* name withheld to protect the identity of this previous GPL author
*/
Antonio Olivares wrote:
I know I will hear some comments, but these are some of the reasons why many developers try to avoid the GPL. Here's probably the strongest case against it.
The GPL is an universal receiver of software from other licenses but it
does not allow GPL code to move
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 10:29 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
which is an interesting read as well. Here's a quote taken directly from it
if you add 'large pieces of originality' to the code which are valid
for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a
different and separate
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Here's an example of a case that the GPL has not helped the original
author
http://www.linux.com/feature/57131
The case is still pending :(, but pretty much the abusers or bad guys
can get away with a great deal. This is unfortunate to the original
authors despite
Nothing is said that has not been said before.
Terence
Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC)
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
2. You may [...] provided that you also meet all of these conditions
There's no room to interpret that as saying or some other license
you found on some web page
There's no denying of this possibility, and
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your wording is too ambiguous and you associate unusual politics with
some of those words so I have no idea what you intend.
Tell me which words, and I'll point out they're present in the GPL as
well, and you don't seem to have any trouble
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights.
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral.
Taking away any right is immoral.
Like, let's say, taking away one's right to
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights.
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral.
Taking away any right is immoral.
Like, let's say, taking away one's right to own slaves?
Red Herring! 'I' don't/can't take away
Les Mikesell wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Please stop spreading misinformation.
That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of
the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license
actually say as misinformation?
The terms of the license aren't
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Your wording is too ambiguous and you associate unusual politics with
some of those words so I have no idea what you intend.
Tell me which words, and I'll point out they're present in the GPL as
well, and you don't seem to have any trouble (mis)interpreting it.
Yes,
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Please stop spreading misinformation.
That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of
the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license
actually say as misinformation?
The terms of the license aren't misinformation; your
Please stop spreading misinformation.
That's funny - remember this post is in
response to my exact quote of
the license section 2b. Do you really consider
what the license
actually say as misinformation?
The terms of the license aren't misinformation;
your uninformed
Antonio Olivares wrote:
If you want an analogy: BSD is like the girl who sleeps with everybody. She gets a lot of
sex and is invited to every party, but nobody respects her. GPL is like the girl who is
selective about her partners. She doesn't have quite as much fun and has
earned herself a
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
The context is that it is a part of what you must agree to do if you
want to do anything with _every_ GPL-encumbered work that copyright
law alone would not permit.
That statement is a little ambiguous. The GPL does not have any power
which
There is nothing to interpret. If you don't
like what
the license
actually says, why do you keep defending it?
He might defend the good parts of the license :)
I preferred not to respond to Les because he insists on
putting words in
my mouth. In fact, I do like what the GPL
Antonio Olivares wrote:
I respect your stance on the license issue. In fact I would agree
that most of the parts are good. Many projects use the license which
shows that it is not totally bad. There are however certain
restrictions and gotchas. For instance in the Open Source
Definitions
Les Mikesell wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
That statement is a little ambiguous. The GPL does not have any power
which copyright law does not grant. Specifically, it can not change
the terms of work licensed under any terms other than its own and it
can not force you to accept any other or
Gordon Messmer wrote:
The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied
that it can or does.
You have repeatedly insisted exactly that.
I've stated that is the practical effect, but the license can only
control your actions, not anyone else's terms. You are only given
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Any code under a compatible license can be combined with GPL code.
The GPL applies to the work as a whole, but does not remove the
license from the other parts which are under compatible licenses.
They can be removed from the GPLed work and reused under their
Why are they filling up the stacks with discussing on this
topic.
Because many users on the list consider it very important. Yes there might be
other issues equally important like global warming and World Peace, but that is
beyond the scope of this mailing list.
There are many other needy
--- Mikkel L. Ellertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig White wrote:
I gather Mikkel, that this means that you have moved from the sidelines
of criticizing the pointlessness of this thread to participation.
Craig
No really. I was just trying to add a bit of humor to it. I have no
BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
Why don't we all just agree that Stallman and the FSF are the Borg and
the GPL is the elixir used to assimilate software (and people).
Resistance is futile. ;-)
Because when your license is strictly a limitation on the way your
product can be improved, your
Why don't we all just agree that Stallman and the
FSF are the Borg and
the GPL is the elixir used to assimilate software
(and people).
Resistance is futile. ;-)
Because when your license is strictly a limitation on the
way your
product can be improved, your competitor
On Jul 25, 2008, ksh shrm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is philosophical, spread ur technical knowledge.
Do you have any reason to believe that technical knowledge is more
important for society than philosophical knowledge?
Nevermind that the subthread you entered was about legal knowledge,
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL
and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but that's
not the point. The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an
immoral
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:34:44PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to
participate in distributing these things as part of a work that
contains any GPL-covered material.
The or denounces your syllogism. The must
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights.
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. But taking
away Immoral rights, that serve the purpose of exerting power over
others
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
1. a grant of rights cannot possibly impose restrictions to whatever
you could do before you received those rights. It's a grant, so it
adds. It's not a contract, so it can't take away.
Per wikipedia, there are
Les Mikesell wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to distribute any
part of the work under different terms, including any of your own
that you might want to add.
Since you never had any such freedom under copyright law, you aren't
giving anything
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights.
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral.
Taking away any right is immoral.
But taking
away Immoral rights, that serve the purpose of exerting power over
others and taking
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Its not that simple. Say you receive a copy of a mostly bsd-origin
work previously modified by adding a few GPL-covered lines and
applying the GPL to the whole as required for #3 at that step. You
now agree to the GPL terms in order to be permitted
Gordon Messmer wrote:
The GPL allows you additional rights: you may distribute the work to
others.
The GPL only allows those rights under limited conditions.
Standard EULAs give you *no* additional rights, and furthermore restrict
how you can use the software that you received.
The
it has always been immoral to demand that
others give up their rights.
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be
immoral.
Taking away any right is immoral.
So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software
is
immoral. So selling the software instead of giving
Les Mikesell wrote:
One person should not have to bear the development cost of something
that could be widely used. But there is no fair mechanism to share it
with GPL-covered code.
So, you're arguing that it's not fair that you should have to write your
own code when GPLed software is
Gordon Messmer wrote:
I strongly recommend that you read:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html
Not necessarily, because it can't be included unless the GPL applies.
Any code under a compatible license can be combined with GPL code. The
GPL
Les Mikesell wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral.
Taking away any right is immoral.
So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software is immoral.
So selling the software instead of giving it away is also immoral. For
one I
elaborate so I can show that your attack is based on false premises.
Its not an attack. The GPLv3 is slanted against certain uses. I happen to
think that is a *good* thing so I'm hardly attacking you.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 17:52 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral.
Taking away any right is immoral.
So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software is immoral.
So
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 06:30:14PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You
can agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually
illegal. An exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get
On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not understand here, why some licenses are compatible and which
ones are not.
License compatibiliy analysis requires looking into the permissions
and conditions established by each license, and looking for conflicts
between them.
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Those are not (pure) licenses, those are license agreements.
Agreements as in contracts. Contracts are meeting of minds and mutual
obligations. The GPL is a unilateral grant of rights.
Not even close. You must accept it or you are not free to redistribute
existing
On Jul 23, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
You do have the freedom and right to license
your own work under any terms you want.
Nope. You have that legal right, but you're only operating within
your freedom as long as your choice respects others' freedom.
On Jul 23, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Your freedom to distribute the improvement is respected
by the GPL, but not by the combination of the licenses you accepted.
Why do you consider that acceptable?
It's undesirable, indeed, but what's to stop
From: Patrick O'Callaghan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 2008, July 22 04:57
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:35 +0200, Andrew Kelly wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 11:34 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
CNN reports that leading climatologists and Al Gore have confirms that
all
the hot air on this thread
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
For me it means using/reusing/improving freely-available, well-tested
code in all possible situations.
And where did you get this idea that this is what Free (and|or) Open
Source Software are about?
That's what
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
but if you've agreed to the GPL terms covering that copy, you have
agreed not to
Again, think dual licensing. The phrase:
nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.
Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 11:34 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
CNN reports that leading climatologists and Al Gore have confirms that all
the hot air on this thread is accelerating global warming.
Al Gore, Al Gore, that rings a bell. Isn't he that guy who invented that
internetwork whachacallit? Heeza
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 14:54 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 21:47 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
the GPL is the one that most often does not permit freedom compared to
any other set of combinations
Just because it doesn't permit the freedom that *you* want to exploit...
All
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:35 +0200, Andrew Kelly wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 11:34 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
CNN reports that leading climatologists and Al Gore have confirms that all
the hot air on this thread is accelerating global warming.
Al Gore, Al Gore, that rings a bell. Isn't he
To cat the free fish living in the sea, Les will need
more
than a free boat.
He will also need Nets,
snip
He does need much more? Yes GNU provides these
things, but
he does not want to give credit to them :( His
company is
Les Fishery Inc., Not Les/GNU Fishery Inc.
On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if he decides to make changes and distribute them, i.e, sell to
other fisherman, then he must make those changes available back to
GNU
I realize this is meant to be funny, rather than factually correct
(mixing up GPL with GNU, for
g wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
snip
Sure, why not? They all make about the same level of sense.
true. but, more sense than the *one* who got these 3 going.
Oh, that is SO cruel!
--jc
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree
to its terms, which then cover the entire work.
But that does not take away any other rights you might have as to
specific parts.
Rights aren't the issue. The question is whether you agree to the
Antonio Olivares wrote:
If a person releases some code like that, he has to supply the source at a
resonable cost of copying any time for the following 3 years?
It's generally easier to just give the source along with the binaries.
But if you don't, the GPL requires the written 3-year
On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just like the Mepis/Zenwalk examples I used previously in the
thread, they modified the code and released it, yet they were not
releasing the changes/what they modified back to the community.
They didn't have to. All the GPL required
Just like the Mepis/Zenwalk examples I used previously
in the
thread, they modified the code and released it, yet
they were not
releasing the changes/what they modified back to the
community.
They didn't have to. All the GPL required of them that
they allegedly
didn't do was to
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 01:37:51PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Someone came out against them, just search Distrowatch. That they
did not fully comply with the GPL?
(...)
Someone did/or other opposing distros that did not want those distros
to get the attention that they were getting.
On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree
to its terms, which then cover the entire work.
But that does not take away any other rights you might have as to
specific parts.
Rights
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:36:56PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
I guess you don't want to read. That kernel is called
Linux.
I'd be as pissed off as Linus if Stallman wanted to
call the kernel
GNU/Linux when the kernel is called Linux.
But Stallman is *not* doing that, he's
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:29:34PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Why is it a mistake?
All I said is that people should call it the way they want to, if
underneath the layers of software resides the linux kernel with/without
the GNU utilites. Like others have said on this list, they should
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree
to its terms, which then cover the entire work.
But that does not take away any other rights you might have as to
specific parts.
Rights aren't the issue.
Of course they are. A license is a
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 05:42:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You can
agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal. An
exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return.
With the GNU GPL you
On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Licenses often impose terms you must meet as a condition of granting
those rights.
Those are not (pure) licenses, those are license agreements.
Agreements as in contracts. Contracts are meeting of minds and mutual
obligations. The GPL is
On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like others have said on this list, they should call it whatever
they consider is best.
Do you think it's just fine if I call you Florisvaldo Azeitonares?
What if people started a campaign and got a lot of people to call you
like that,
On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The code is available for free from some places, is that a
sufficient condition?
Not for GPLv2. For GPLv3, it is, but the responsibility of ensuring
people who get the binaries can get the sources still lies with the
distributor of
I don't understand what you're questioning here.
Could you please
rephrase or elaborate?
I do not understand here, why some licenses are compatible and which ones are
not. For instance, the Mozilla Public License is incompatible with the GPL and
we can see Mozilla firefox and/or
If you can read Portuguese (from your name, perhaps you
can), please
have a look at
http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/gplv3-novidades
and http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/copyleft, it may
help
understand the reasoning behind the conditions of the GPL,
if its
preamble doesn't
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Licenses often impose terms you must meet as a condition of granting
those rights.
Those are not (pure) licenses, those are license agreements.
Agreements as in contracts. Contracts are meeting of minds and mutual
obligations. The GPL is a unilateral grant of rights.
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed that there is next to no chance for enforcement in such a case,
but does your reading of the GPL not indicate that non-GPL
distribution of copies of anything ever covered by its work-as-a-whole
provision is prohibited?
Yep, my
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Several times, you end up having to decide between promoting software
freedom and promoting the software that happens to be Free (and OSS).
Yes, the divisive nature of the GPL is unfortunate.
FYI, the GPL (and
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please show how something can
include any GPL-covered work, yet be distributed under different
terms if you insist on claiming that.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I don't have to show anything like that.
You don't, but why make such a claim
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Depending on whether you're guided by FS or OSS values, you'll tend to
consistently choose one in detriment of the other.
Yes, that is unfortunate, but you have to live with it to promote FOSS.
This is fundamentally contradictory. If you have to choose between
Les Mikesell wrote:
Not at all. The more choices you have the better. You can only go forward.
I keep telling my wife that But she doesn't buy it.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Please show how something can
include any GPL-covered work, yet be distributed under different
terms if you insist on claiming that.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I don't have to show anything like that.
You don't, but why make such a claim when you obviously can't back
On Jul 21, 2008, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Not at all. The more choices you have the better. You can only go forward.
I keep telling my wife that But she doesn't buy it.
She does. She just doesn't tell you about it :-P :-D
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I think you're pasting each other. The question is just not related
with the sub-topic at hand, and it's ambiguous.
Heh. -ENOENGLISH. s/pasting/talking past/
This part of the conversation started with someone
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
This is fundamentally contradictory. If you have to choose between
these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS.
It is a problem the GPL creates.
That's a red herring. The GPL has *zero* to do with it.
If we didn't have
Les Mikesell wrote:
...
It is only difficult to escape when equal/better choices don't exist.
One of the reasons those other choices might not exist is that
licenses that only permit code re-use under restrictive conditions
like the GPL have prevented them from being created.
Wow, some
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Some licenses do allow their own terms to be replaced by the GPL,
True, but these are very rare. GNU LGPL and the Brazilian LPG-AP v2,
so far unpublished, are the only examples that come to mind.
Most licenses that are compatible with the GPL are compatible just
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
but it's a one way trip and that copy of such code no longer has its
original license terms.
Can you back this up? All the evidence I've got suggests the exact
opposite.
I thought you had just agreed with this
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
but it's a one way trip and that copy of such code no longer has its
original license terms.
Can you back this up? All the evidence I've got suggests the exact
opposite.
I thought you
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I still don't see how the GPL requirements are
technically removed once you've accepted the license that applies them
to any covered component of a work.
The requirements aren't removed. They don't have to be. You have
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
This is fundamentally contradictory. If you have to choose between
these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS.
It is a problem the GPL creates.
That's a red herring.
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Aren't you obligated by accepting this license to observe its terms
which explicitly extend to the work-as-a-whole?
You're not even required to accept the license. Even if you do, it
grants you certain permissions over the whole and every part of it,
but it doesn't
The GPL meets both the FS and the OSS definition.
News to me. GPLv3 has clauses which are specifically aimed at certain
uses, and clauses which contain systematic biases in favour of people who
have certain long standing arrangements with Microsoft.
It's not IMHO an OSS licence. Free yes, OSS
Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at chello.at writes:
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at redhat.com writes:
If you find any such problems in BLAG 8 (never formally released)
or BLAG 9 (released easier today), please report them.
Here's some I found at a quick glance:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
This is fundamentally contradictory. If you have to choose between
these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS.
the GPL is the well-known instance.
The GPL meets both the FS and the OSS definition.
The GPL can only meet it under very limited
Seriously, you freaking people are never gonna agree, and that's fine. We
are not here to watch zealots clog up our inboxes with this garbage.
Take it off list, or meet in the alley out back and handle it with your
favorite dueling weapons or whatever, but PLEASE, SHUT UP.
Jeez!
--
fedora-list
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 04:35 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The OSS movement cares about popularity and convenience, so an
esential part of this movement is to accept, endorse and promote the
use of software that denies users their freedoms, when that is
convenient and can lure in more users.
2008/7/21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Seriously, you freaking people are never gonna agree, and that's fine. We
are not here to watch zealots clog up our inboxes with this garbage.
Take it off list, or meet in the alley out back and handle it with your
favorite dueling weapons or
CNN reports that leading climatologists and Al Gore have confirms that all
the hot air on this thread is accelerating global warming.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Ed Greshko wrote:
CNN reports that leading climatologists and Al Gore have confirms that
all the hot air on this thread is accelerating global warming.
way to go ed. now you have given linux.whiz [what is that running down
his leg?] kid another thread...
--
tc,hago.
g
.
in a free world
max bianco wrote:
snip
Is the asterisk in the subject line supposed to confuse me? Its quite
now we have 5 'gnu/linux' threads.
will we see 6???
--
tc,hago.
g
.
in a free world without fences, who needs gates.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
Ed Greshko wrote:
snip
Sure, why not? They all make about the same level of sense.
true. but, more sense than the *one* who got these 3 going.
--
tc,hago.
g
.
in a free world without fences, who needs gates.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
On Jul 21, 2008, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL meets both the FS and the OSS definition.
News to me.
http://www.opensource.org/node/193
GPLv3 has clauses which are specifically aimed at certain uses
I guess it's pointless for me to ask you to substantiate this, since
you're
1 - 100 of 313 matches
Mail list logo
